Dell, Inc announced on Friday that it will offer Windows XP operating system to their personal computer customers after the June deadline. Microsoft has scheduled to pull the Windows XP operating system from store shelves on June 30 in an effort to upgrade customers to Windows Vista.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2008-03-27
Member since:2006-11-13
I use Linux for my day-to-day work and at home. I'm a software developer by trade, so I have to test my apps under Windows as well (unfortunately). I fully agree with you, Windows 2000 is for me the best Windows version by far!!
Member since:2005-08-11
I'd be more apt to blame the developers then Vista for your broken apps. They only had 2 years to update them, and couldn't get it done. I don't see blaming Vista as a rational response. Application compatibility was actually pretty good at release, and has only gotten better in the interim.
Most problems I had with Vista was with hardware support, and that has almost completely gone away. It's been a whole year and a half. Driver compatibility was mostly the fault of crappy or missing drivers, The hardware companies also wasted that 2 years. Microsoft released the first developer preview for Vista in 2005! Come on, it shouldn't take that long to get fast stable drivers out the door. Thankfully, the driver situation has also gotten much better.
I'd rather move forward and gain more capabilities, even if the road is a little bumpy, then to stay rooted firmly in 2002.
Edited 2008-08-31 01:11 UTC
Member since:2006-04-07
So basicly, every time ms decide to break compatibilty, developers should jump up and change every single piece of software they ever made?
Or else they get the blame for what ms decided to change.
Member since:2007-07-13
I could be wrong, but IIRC Microsoft made changes to the driver model several times, and one very close to the release Vista release date. I believe this was due to loopholes around DRM that required re-jigging the driver model to change them. Again, I could be wrong, but this is murmurs that seemed to be coming from hardware developers regarding Vista. If this is true, who's fault would it be then?
Member since:2008-05-12
You have not used "Great Plains" (a Microsoft product) on Vista. (Edit boot.ini to disable DEP then reboot to install service packs.) Microsoft's own service packs for Great Plains will not install with DEP running and Mico$oft had more time to prepare than anyone else.
As to hardware: I have not had as many problems with the hardware itself as I have with Microsoft's "Vista compatible" scheme.
When you see "Vista Capable" on the box it does not mean compatible with all flavors of Vista, rather it means compatible with at least a few - mostly 32bit, but sometimes (according to one company I have spoken with) Business Pro may not qualify either.
I have Ultimate 64. I bought "Vista Capable" hardware that I am either stuck with or have returned, depending on the circumstances of the purchase.
Confusing the consumer with misleading marketing is not going to foster a favorable view of Vista. So shame on Microsoft for not coming up with "Vista 32," "Vista 64," and "VISTA (meaning ALL flavors) Compatible."
Instead, Mico$oft's solution, as described by someone from one of the companies I have dealt with:
"As for the Vista compatibility logo, this is actually a Microsoft standard/requirement that is being used by companies in general for products that carry the Vista Compatible sticker. As Microsoft explains it:
â"Vista Capable" sticker has a reasonable
expectation of getting "the core experience that
Microsoft has spent quite a lot of money
advertising as the Vista experience."
Unfortunately this does not guarantee it will run on Vista 64 bit, and for many products they do not. The Microsoft standard/requirement that does guarantee working with both 32 and 64 bit Vista is the âCertified for Windows Vistaâ
(â..Ensures compatibility with 32-bit and 64-bit
editions of Windows Vista.â
I know it seems a bit nit-picky and can be confusing to users, but this is the mechanism that Microsoft has created for placing the various stickers on vendors products."
I agree with "nit-picky" and "confusing" for users. I think it is reasonable to expect a product which is described as "Vista Capable", without qualifications, to work with Vista without qualifications.
Think about, "this does not guarantee it will run on Vista 64 bit, and for many products they do not."
They didn't say "Vista Capable" excludes Vista 64 all the time, just some of the time, with no definition as to when and why.
I, as a consumer, would rather concise definitions regarding compatibility, in clear language, as opposed to what we have with Vista right now.
Member since:
2006-05-13
I see GAMES that run better in WINE than with Vista SP1. Vista SP1 broke so many applications for me I was forced back to XP SP3. I can only hope for SP4, long live XP, the final working version of Windows.